click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
yes, countries -- if we look at the most recent presidential election in the united states, there was something if he went through the republican primaries people were saying let's not this person. it's not tim pawlenty dropshot right after the audio what caucuses and then michele bachman dropshot and new gingrich can you are left with a sort of one person left standing. it's not about picking a winner. it's about picking losers. this is not the person, this is not the person. and finally you get the last person standing. the process of elimination. >> host: which is consistent in better organization it tends to be. >> it is a simplified version of reality that i think you used to build the theories that are simple and then you make them more complex but if you take say gee so they're famous for the way they choose leaders. we always tell our students g is a company that works in practice but not in theory. it doesn't seem to do any of the things that we say it should do but it is successful. and if you have the competency, it seems to be that it's good at picking leaders c
presidential election in the united states, there was something if he went through their public and primaries that people were saying it's not this person. tim pawlenty drops out and then michele bachmann drops out and then newt gingrich drops out and eventually you are left with the last person standing. it's not about picking a winner. it's about picking losers. this is not the 1 -- person and finally gets the last person standing. >> host: a process of elimination, which is consistent in whatever organization it is. >> guest: i think it is in the sense that it's a simplified version of reality, that i think you used to build very. theory star simple and you make a more complex but if you take ge. ge is famous for the way it chooses leaders. we always tell her students, ge is the company that works in practice but not in theory. it doesn't seem to do anything as we say it should do but it is profitable and successful. if you had to pick ge's core competency it seems to be it's good at picking leaders and developing managers in training managers and picking the right people. ge spends 20 y
's filtration processes. the most recent presidential election in the united states. there was something, if you went through the republican primaries, that people were saying, well, it's not this person. it's not -- tim drops out after the iowa caucuses and michele bachmann, and newt gingrich, and you're left with a last person standing. most often, it's not about picking a winner, but it's about picking losers. this is not the person. this is not the person, and finally, you get a last person standing. >> host: process of elimination. >> guest: exactly. >> host: which is consistent in whatever organization it is? >> guest: so -- >> host: has to be? >> guest: i think it is in the sense that it's a platonic idea, a simp fied # version of reality that i think you use to build theory. start with simple and make them more complex, but if you take, say, ge. so ge is famous for the way it chooses leaders. ge, we always tell students ge is a company that works in practice, but not in theory. it doesn't seem to do anything of the things we say it should do, but it's incredibly profit l and successful.
before the midterm elections. robert kennedy is meeting in his office and they are trying to work out deals privately about this. word has just come to kennedy that an american surveillance plan has been shot down. and kennedy has a tape recorder rolling and talks to buddy kennedy. and kennedy thinking, okay, we think the plane has been shot down. now what do we do? and he's going through, he is thinking about the political pressures and it is such a remarkable moment that you get to hear in real time, struggling through, what do we do? do we retaliate? we sent our planes over? as it happened, he was handed a reprieve. it was a false alarm. but you get the sense of what kennedy is still facing. this is a week after the 13 days >> host: kennedy was acutely useful of escalation and how they would lose control of the situation, except now with nuclear weapons. so the contingency plan had been to shoot down them and kennedy refused to authorize it because he was so afraid of it. it wasn't just a question of what kind of plane,. there were some planes that were safer and less horrible to b
election. robert kennedy is meeting in his office with the soviet ambassador. they are frying to work out the deals. privately about this. word has come to kennedy in the oval office that an american plane, the pentagon told him that the american surveillance plane may have been shot down over cuba. kennedy has the tape recorder rolling and talking to robbie kennedy while the prime minister is -- ambassador is the room. we think a plane has been shut down. what do we do? and he's going through do we do air strikes? he's talking about the things about the prelim performs going to be faced when it comes out. it's one of the remarkable moments you get to hear a.in real time struggling through, okay, now what go do? do we retaliate and send our planes over and knock out the airfield which would have reinflamed the crisis. kennedy was having a reprieve. it was a false alarm. they had scrammed. they hadn't shut down an american plane. you goat windows and you get a sense of the tension what kennedy is facing. had is, you know, a week after the 30 the days. you get a sense how close military act
was a huge year. you had johnson resigning, decided not to go for another term. yet nixon's election, assassination of mr. king and bobby kennedy. you had democratic party's wild convention in chicago. so a lot of books on 68, woodstock and also months and that sort of thing. so i'm afraid my book is by no means unique. there's also a book on 1964, which makes pretty much the same argument as i do, only he sets a year earlier. i don't have been a huge quarrel with that. i wouldn't say i'm the only person who's right about this, the 65 did seem to be the time, not that it was the most romantic. 68 probably was in terms of world shattering, memorable events. but it was a time when the 50s and early 60s rapidly vanished or began to vanish from view and a hurry. the real reason, that's why. >> i think i've pretty much agree with you that the central year is 1965. but there's something more at stake in your book, at least i think so. i want to prove i'm not. in a way we can either be talking about the 60s and just talking about were 65 hits in the 1960s, but there's a claim in the book on
, and you made a motion on projectile motion, i don't have the give the election. students watch it on their own time and pace, remediate without taking up class time, and when they go to class, they can ask me questions, clarifications, and we can do problems together. it used to be homework, but now the problems are done in the classroom. the advantage there is the real learning occurs the engagement, and traditionally students don't do homework, have trouble doing homework because there's nobody home to help them out, but now they do it in the classroom, the teachers, the peers, not only to help you, but when you help others, you learn better. when you're lecturing, it's hard to know where people are. i mean, you might be able to pull them, ask questions, but it's hard. students are blank faces, but if you do problem solving together, much more -- you can understand where students are and diagnose them. that's the flip. what used to be homework in the classroom, what used to be lectures are now at home. it makes the classroom interactive, students get lectures at their time an
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7